http://law-library.rutgers.edu/SSM.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-church20- 2008may20,0,1047569.story?vote38891433=1
It was not a shocking or typical event when few days ago (May 15th, 2008), the California Supreme Court overturned the ban of gays’ marriage. The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental “right to marry” that extends equally to same-sex couples. Indeed, the issue has its history since it started for more than 15 years ago when the Hawaii Supreme Court decided the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples would be unconstitutional unless the state could prove that it offenses one of the states’ interests. Few years later, 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to open civil marriage to same-sex couples, then Belgium, Canada, and Spain followed the legislature to include 27 states of the United Sates of America. Hence, the issue became controversy and each time a new country or a state endorses the amazing law, it adds fuel to the debate. But, does the issue deserve to be a controversy? 
Is that true that there is no logic to cope with this issue once for all? Let’s see this: “Gay people deserve the same right to marry that everybody else does. And God cares about our relationships the same way God cares about heterosexual relationships. We're making the same commitments to each other. We have the same responsibilities to each other, and we deserve the same rights and responsibilities under the law that everyone else has." Harry Knox of the Human Rights Campaign. Here it is another argument on the side of same –sex marriage: "Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully an equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage." The Marriage Resolution, by the Marriage Project of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. On the other hand, opponents object as marriage is an institution between one man and one woman, same –sex couples aren’t’ the optimum environment in which to raise children, gay relationships are immoral and marriages are for procreation ad ensuring the continuation of the species.
It is sometimes challenging to understand why an already resolved issue like this is a controversy. Same-sex marriage seems proposing a redefinition not only for marriage but for life in a whole. Life has been always generated from the existence of dualities: Man Vs woman, virtue Vs vice, love Vs hatred, coldness Vs heat, black Vs white and so on and so forth. Hence, what’s this definition since the answer is simple, clear, neat, and unique for such an issue: As long as there is no life there should be no law advocating the destruction of life. If we review the three principles of the American constitution: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is important to notice that individuals’ freedom is classified after the life. To say it differently, even tolerance should be intolerant when the bet is on human life.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-church20- 2008may20,0,1047569.story?vote38891433=1
It was not a shocking or typical event when few days ago (May 15th, 2008), the California Supreme Court overturned the ban of gays’ marriage. The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental “right to marry” that extends equally to same-sex couples. Indeed, the issue has its history since it started for more than 15 years ago when the Hawaii Supreme Court decided the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples would be unconstitutional unless the state could prove that it offenses one of the states’ interests. Few years later, 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to open civil marriage to same-sex couples, then Belgium, Canada, and Spain followed the legislature to include 27 states of the United Sates of America. Hence, the issue became controversy and each time a new country or a state endorses the amazing law, it adds fuel to the debate. But, does the issue deserve to be a controversy? 
Is that true that there is no logic to cope with this issue once for all? Let’s see this: “Gay people deserve the same right to marry that everybody else does. And God cares about our relationships the same way God cares about heterosexual relationships. We're making the same commitments to each other. We have the same responsibilities to each other, and we deserve the same rights and responsibilities under the law that everyone else has." Harry Knox of the Human Rights Campaign. Here it is another argument on the side of same –sex marriage: "Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully an equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage." The Marriage Resolution, by the Marriage Project of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. On the other hand, opponents object as marriage is an institution between one man and one woman, same –sex couples aren’t’ the optimum environment in which to raise children, gay relationships are immoral and marriages are for procreation ad ensuring the continuation of the species.
It is sometimes challenging to understand why an already resolved issue like this is a controversy. Same-sex marriage seems proposing a redefinition not only for marriage but for life in a whole. Life has been always generated from the existence of dualities: Man Vs woman, virtue Vs vice, love Vs hatred, coldness Vs heat, black Vs white and so on and so forth. Hence, what’s this definition since the answer is simple, clear, neat, and unique for such an issue: As long as there is no life there should be no law advocating the destruction of life. If we review the three principles of the American constitution: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is important to notice that individuals’ freedom is classified after the life. To say it differently, even tolerance should be intolerant when the bet is on human life.
1 comment:
if you want to know if something is good or no, make it general for evreybody !!! we will take now the example of same sex marriage : the result is "No humain on earth in year 21O8".
SO i can say, and it's a definitve decesion : NO FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE"
see you soon
Post a Comment